Related Stories

The Senate responded to admonition of the Kansas Supreme Court by considering a bill Wednesday shedding the state's constitutionally suspect maximum for pain-and-suffering damage awards by endorsing a $100,000 increase over an eight-year period.

This category of compensation to Kansans — if the bill is affirmed Thursday by the Senate, later by the House and signed by Gov. Sam Brownback — would escalate from the current standard of $250,000 to no more than $300,000 from 2014 to 2018, $325,000 from 2018 to 2022 and $350,000 thereafter.

The state's maximum for non-economic damages hasn't changed in 25 years. Senators' consideration of Senate Bill 311 was inspired by a high court decision in 2012 explaining the non-economic cap was constitutional, at the moment, but justices warned it may not be viewed in the same light if left static.

"In my opinion having caps, having them at a reasonable level, is greatly in the interest of the public," said Sen. Jeff King, an Independence Republican who championed the bill on the Senate floor.

King endorsed other provisions in the bill altering who could testify as an expert witness at trial and opening the door to presentation in court of information about financial resources provided to a plaintiff. These pieces were advocated by business and medical lobbyists working on the bill.

Sen. Tom Holland, D-Baldwin City, failed to land much support for an amendment overhauling framework of the bill. He sought increases over eight years in the cap on non-economic damages to $500,000. That is the level the ceiling should reside at if adjusted for inflation since 1988, he said.

"We're going to ramp this up $100,000? That's not miserly. That's pitiful," Holland said. "We need to take this up to $500,000. We need to not fear the jury on what they may or may not decide. We need to trust the citizens of Kansas."

His amendment — rejected 6-32 — would have deleted provisions adjusting expert witness standards as well as rules on consideration of "collateral source" awards to plaintiffs.

Meanwhile, the Senate engaged in tug-of-war on a bill that would establish the first statewide cost regulations for cities, counties and state agencies handling open records requests from the public.

Sen. Jacob LaTurner, a Pittsburg Republican, proposed the bill setting a fee structure for copying public documents and the maximum per-hour rates for staff time involved in answering Kansas Open Records Act requests. For example, under the bill, requests taking less than 1 hour and printed on fewer than 25 pages would be free. The maximum for attorney time would be $60 per hour.

He said Senate Bill 10, likely to be voted on Thursday, would require any entity subject to the Kansas Open Meetings Act to take minutes of their meetings.

"This is a good government bill in my estimation," said LaTurner, who has been pressing the measure for two years.

The Senate overwhelmingly rejected an amendment by Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, to repeal a measure allowing the Republican and Democratic caucus meetings among House and Senate members to be closed.

"I think we should practice what we preach," Hensley said. "Party caucuses should always be open."

In 2012, the Shawnee County district attorney investigated dozens of Kansas legislators regarding their participation in a series of meetings with Gov. Sam Brownback at his official residence. The district attorney determined lawmakers were guilty of "technical" violations of the Kansas Open Meeting Act but couldn't be prosecuted because they weren’t familiar enough with the law to intentionally break the statute.

The Senate also came under fire in 2013 when Brownback met with about 30 Republican senators behind closed doors outside the Capitol to discuss a pending vote on a pivotal piece of tax legislation. Reporters were ordered out of that gathering after brief remarks by the governor.

Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, R-Hutchinson, objected to Hensley's amendment because rare private, partisan gatherings among legislators were essential to the movement of the state's political process. If sessions were open to all, he said, there would be a chilling effect.

"This system works well to have this exception," he said. "I don't think it's been abused. To vote against this amendment is not a vote against open government."

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of
civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site.
Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate
language, but readers might find some comments offensive or
inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the
"Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Perhaps we could use a "chilling effect" on some of asinine bills that should never have seen the light of day, but did. A "chilling effect" on the horrible national publicity the irresponsible actions of the legislature to date has brought Kansas would be a good thing! If these nutty bills actually get introduced one can only imagine what is being discussed in the closed door party caucus meetings!!!

I requested some records from a cemetery at a mental hospital. I was given an estimate....so much per hour for someone to search records, no problem, understandable. YET at the end they were going to tack on a $750 additional for administrative fee. For what????